Investigating Effects of Psychological Factors on Commuting Mode Choice Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper utilizes socio-psychometric data measured using ad hoc surveys to investigate the influence of attitudes, affective appraisal and habit formation on commuting mode choice. The dataset was collected in 2009-2010 in Edmonton, Alberta. In addition to common socioeconomic, demographic and modal attributes, the survey gathered psychological information regarding habitual behaviour, affective appraisal and personal attitudes. Different psychometric tools were used to capture psychological factors affecting mode choice. Habitual behaviour was measured by using Verplanken’s response-frequency questionnaire. Affective appraisal was indirectly estimated using the Osgood's semantic differential. Five-point Likert scales were used to measure attitude. The Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) approach was used to investigate the effects of psychological factors on mode choice behaviour. SEM captures the latent nature of psychological factors and uses path diagram to identify the directionality as well as intensity of the relationships. The investigation reveals that passengers have positive emotions towards their chosen mode. Further, evidence of the superiority of the car as a travel alternative was established in terms of strong habit towards it, such that passengers would use the car for almost every single trip.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".